A Noble Idea or a Load of Old Cobblers?

Several UK newspapers recently (30.01.19) reported a government-backed initiative to promote speech, language, and communication by training workers in shoe shops to talk to children.  Here at Dumond Education, we actively support community involvement in promoting and supporting education, but are the most disadvantaged parents and children, the target group for this scheme, frequenting shoe shops on a sufficiently regular basis for this to have an impact?  Skepticism (and shoe shop PR) aside, an advantage of this announcement may be in kick-starting (pardon another pun!) a debate about literacy and language development. 

It is important to consider the basis of this initiative.  The newspaper reports cite National Literacy Trust findings 16.4% of adults in England, or 7.1 million people, have ‘very poor literacy skills.’  On the National Literacy Trust’s website, Monaghan (2018) writes, ‘It is well-documented that the number of words children hear in the first five years of their life is linked to the size of their vocabulary at age five.’

Mention of vocabulary size is most associated with Hart and Risley’s (1995) ‘word gap’ findings and their link with educational attainment.  This US study, involving 42 families of different income levels, considered whether language interactions play a role in intergenerational poverty with the researchers famously estimating lower SES children were exposed to 30 million fewer words by the age of 4. 

Although the methodology of this study has been criticised, an ethnocentric bias demonstrated, and questions raised about how ‘quality interaction’ was determined, its impact persists through the generalisation of its findings (among 6 black families in Kansas City) to all low-income parents (Dudley-Marling& Lucas, 2009).  The deficit model of thinking contained in the study lays the blame for children’s educational failings with their parents, who are deemed to pass to them a ‘culture of poverty’ (Hart & Risley, 1995, p.2).  This model places ‘blame on the victim, rather than the system’ and ignores the economic and social disparity at play (Kuchirko, 2017). 

There is a risk yesterday’s announcement perpetuates just such a deficit model in the UK.  The idea language and literacy attainment can be raised by shopworkers chatting to children, and that this is a means of promoting parental confidence in supporting their child’s early learning (DfE/Zahawi, 2019), belies the complexity of the situation and is a slap in the face to all those who work so hard to promote educational attainment amongst disadvantaged children.  If only a few words in a shop could in some way buffer against the crippling effects of poverty.  The government’s own Social Mobility Commission’s (2017, p.16) report is clear on what makes a difference for disadvantaged children:

“Areas with the best support for disadvantaged children have high-quality preschool settings, effective promotion and use of early education, evidence-based support for parents, and integrated health and education services.”

Obviously, shoe shop workers engaging with parents and children is but one facet of yesterday’s announcement and is the element the media have pounced on.  Support from business is great but only if that support is directed towards those initiatives proven to make a difference.  We call on those businesses and the DfE to ensure children’s early learning is more than just a sound bite. 

As Dumond is about empowerment through education and given the many ways to support children’s language and literacy at home, our next blog post will consider practical suggestions for boosting attainment in these areas.

References:

Dudley-Marling, C. & Lucas, K. (2009) Pathologizing the Language and Culture of Poor Children. Language ArtsVol. 86(5), pp. 362-370.

Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD, US: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Kurchiko, Y. (2017) On differences and deficits: A critique of the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of the word gap. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 0(0): pp.1-30.

Monaghan, P. (2018) Closing the word gap: What contributes to the variation in children’s language development in the early years? Available at: https://medium.com/national-literacy-trust/closing-the-word-gap-812b2b41b413. Accessed 31 January 2019.

National Literacy Trust n.d., Adult literacy:Information on adult literacy in the UK and our Books Unlocked programme. Available at:https://literacytrust.org.uk/parents-and-families/adult-literacy/. Accessed 31 January 2019.

Social Mobility Commission, (2017) State of the Nation: Social Mobility in Great Britain. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/662744/State_of_the_Nation_2017_-_Social_Mobility_in_Great_Britain.pdf. Accessed 31 January 2019.